W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > December 2002

FW: Comments on XKMS spec

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:39:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A34D616B@vhqpostal6.verisign.com>
To: "Www-Xkms (E-mail)" <www-xkms@w3.org>
Roberts comments

Section 8.6 para [321] NotBoundAuthenticationData is not mentioned
anywhere else. 

Removed the extraneous data 

 Section A.1 Schema: The comment for CompoundResult calls it
"CompoundResponse". Repeated in para [95].  


Section, para [91] "Success" is listed as one of the possible
major result codes for the xkms:Failure minor result code. Is that

Fixed - see other message 

Section 2.8.11 para [94] "If the compound request has the
MajorResult..." should be result rather than request.  


Section 3.1.1 para [107] The example LocateRequest has a RespondWith
element of "Multiple" but this is no longer a valid string according to
the table in para [75]. Repeated in para [117]. 

Will get fixed in the example cleanup 

Section 3.1.2 para [109] The text indicates that the KeyName is
requested but this does not show up in the example request message. 

Will get fixed in the example cleanup  

Section 4.1 para [129] ds:KeyID is invalid. Should it be PGPKeyID?  


Section 4.1.9 para [162] StatusValue is listed as being optional but
this is not reflected in the schema.  


Section 2.8.1 para [62] The Id attribute in MessageAbstractType is of
type ID but the RequestID of ResultAbstractType is of type anyURI.
Should these not be the same? 

Actually they should be IDREFs, this is a consequence of the changes we
did from URI to ID 

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 16:39:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:40 UTC